Challenges to National Highways compensation awards should ordinarily be pursued before the Section 3G(5) arbitrator.

The petitioner, owner of land bearing Khasra No. 719/7 at Village Belmundi, challenged the land-acquisition award dated 01.06.2018, alleging that the respondents had failed to apply the multiplication factor of two while determining compensation under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the First Schedule thereto.

She sought re-determination of the award in accordance with the Division Bench decision in Union of India v. Mahadev Gond.

During the proceedings, the petitioner was permitted to appear and prosecute the matter in person.

The respondents objected that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The petitioner consequently sought permission to pursue that statutory remedy.

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956

Whether the petitioner was entitled to re-determination of compensation by applying a multiplication factor of two under Section 26 of the 2013 Act and the First Schedule thereto

Whether the merits of the petitioner’s challenge to the award should be decided by the statutory Arbitrator appointed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides an alternative statutory remedy before an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government against determination of compensation under the Act.

The existence of an alternative remedy is ordinarily a rule of convenience and does not curtail the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226; however, the High Court may ordinarily relegate a party to the statutory remedy unless exceptional circumstances, patent arbitrariness, illegality, or miscarriage of justice are demonstrated.

Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, read with the First Schedule, governs the determination of market value and the applicable multiplication factor.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decisions in Ashutosh Agrawal v. Union of India and connected matters, and in WA No. 140 of 2022, which recognised the statutory arbitral remedy and directed parties challenging compensation or the multiplier to approach the Arbitrator.

The petitioner’s challenge concerned the quantification of compensation and the multiplier applied in the acquisition award, matters falling within the scope of the statutory remedy under Section 3G(5).

Although Article 226 jurisdiction is not legally barred by the existence of an alternative remedy, the Court found no basis in the present case to depart from the ordinary rule of requiring the petitioner to pursue the designated arbitral remedy.

Following the approach adopted by the Division Bench in WA No. 140 of 2022, the Court directed that the petitioner’s objections regarding the compensation amount and the application of the multiplier be examined objectively by the Arbitrator.

The Court expressly refrained from adjudicating the correctness of the claimed multiplication factor on merits.

The petitioner was directed to approach the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 within 30 days from receipt of the order.

The Arbitrator was directed to consider the petitioner’s challenge to the compensation quantified and the multiplier applied, and to decide the matter objectively and in accordance with law within six months from the petitioner’s appearance.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.